Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 29 PageID: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`SUEZ WATER NEW JERSEY INC.,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. ______________
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
`DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (F/K/A
`DOWDUPONT, INC.); DUPONT SPECIALTY
`PRODUCTS USA, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; THE
`CHEMOURS COMPANY; and THE CHEMOURS
`COMPANY FC, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Judge ______________
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
`JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff SUEZ Water New Jersey Inc. (hereinafter, “SUEZ”) hereby files this Complaint
`
`against Defendants E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., DuPont de Nemours, Inc.,
`
`DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, Corteva, Inc., The Chemours Company, and The
`
`Chemours Company FC, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`SUEZ brings this action against Defendants jointly and severally for damages
`
`sustained as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
`
`substances (“PFAS”), including without limitation perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and
`
`perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”), into New Jersey’s environment. For more than six
`
`decades, Defendants, as manufacturers and distributors of PFAS and PFAS-containing
`
`commercial and consumer products, have knowingly and willfully discharged PFAS into the air,
`
`water, and soil, and placed PFAS and PFAS-containing products into the stream of commerce,
`
`resulting in widespread and long-lasting contamination to natural resources within and
`
`2:20-CV-19906
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 29 PageID: 2
`
`throughout the State of New Jersey—including, pertinently, the water sources that SUEZ relies
`
`upon to provide safe drinking water to its more than 1,500,000 customers in New Jersey.
`
`2.
`
`On June 1, 2020, after several years of studying the long-term effects of PFAS,
`
`the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) announced the adoption of
`
`Maximum Contaminant Levels and Groundwater Quality Standards for public water systems.
`
`The Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCLs”) are among the most stringent in the United States,
`
`and SUEZ, as the owner and operator of multiple public water systems in New Jersey, must
`
`comply with them by the first quarter of 2021. As a result, and based upon technical analyses of
`
`SUEZ’s various sources of public drinking water, SUEZ has been, and will continue to be,
`
`required to make significant and costly upgrades to the water treatment infrastructure for its
`
`public water systems and will incur significant ongoing costs required to operate and maintain
`
`those upgrades, as well as to engage in the regular monitoring of PFAS levels in all water
`
`sources necessitated by New Jersey’s adoption of these standards.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants were, or reasonably should have been, aware that their acts and
`
`omissions directly and proximately caused the release of PFAS into New Jersey’s environment
`
`and that such releases could pose hazards to the State’s natural resources, but chose profits over
`
`safety and continued to contaminate the environment for more than a half-century. Only recently
`
`has the full scope of Defendants’ actions begun to come to light. Moreover, the emerging costs
`
`of remedying Defendants’ long-running contamination of New Jersey’s environment are
`
`substantial, and those costs have fallen disproportionately upon those whose responsibility it is to
`
`provide safe drinking water to New Jersey residents. Therefore, SUEZ brings this action against
`
`Defendants in an effort to hold them accountable for the significant harms done to New Jersey’s
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 29 PageID: 3
`
`public water supplies and to ensure that SUEZ has the resources necessary to continue to provide
`
`its customers with drinking water that meets the NJDEP standards.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`SUEZ is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located at
`
`461 From Road, Suite 400, Paramus, New Jersey, 07652.
`
`5.
`
`SUEZ was established in 1869 and currently operates 38 public water systems
`
`(i.e., PWSIDs) in New Jersey, which are specifically identified by NJDEP, as follows:
`
`Hackensack, Franklin Lakes, Montvale, Highlands (29), Lambertville, Matchaponix/Manalapan
`
`(2), Colts Neck, and Toms River. Collectively, these water systems service approximately
`
`250,000 unique connections in central and northern New Jersey and provide water to
`
`approximately 1,500,000 customers across New Jersey.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business located at 974 Centre Road, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware, 19805. DuPont does business throughout the United States, including in this District.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDuPont) (“New DuPont”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 974 Centre Road,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware, 19805. New DuPont does business throughout the United States,
`
`including in this District.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC (“DuPont LLC”) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 974 Centre Road,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware, 19805. DuPont LLC does business throughout the United States,
`
`including in this District.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 4 of 29 PageID: 4
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at P.O. Box 80735, Chestnut Run Plaza 735, Wilmington, Delaware,
`
`19805. Corteva does business throughout the United States, including in this District. Corteva is
`
`the parent corporation of DuPont and holds certain of New DuPont’s assets and liabilities, as
`
`well as its agricultural and nutritional businesses.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19899.
`
`Chemours does business throughout the United States, including in this District. Chemours was
`
`incorporated as a subsidiary of DuPont on April 30, 2015. On July 1, 2015, DuPont spun off
`
`Chemours and created a separate corporate entity to hold its “performance chemicals” business
`
`lines, along with certain of DuPont’s environmental liabilities.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant The Chemours Company FC, LLC (“Chemours FC”) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1007 Market Street,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware, 19899. Chemours FC does business throughout the United States,
`
`including in this District. Chemours FC is a subsidiary of Chemours.
`
`12.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because it is
`
`an action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
`
`$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of New
`
`Jersey.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 5 of 29 PageID: 5
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
`
`14.
`
`PFAS are a group of manufactured fluorinated organic chemicals that are used in
`
`a wide variety of industrial and commercial products. Previously, PFAS were commonly
`
`referred to as perfluorinated compounds.
`
`15.
`
` Due to their unique properties that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water,
`
`PFAS have played a central role in the manufacture and development of many consumer products
`
`since their introduction in the 1940s. Notably, PFAS have been used to produce many consumer
`
`and industrial products including carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, food packaging, a variety
`
`of cookware, and Defendant-affiliated name brands such as Stainmaster®, Teflon®, Gore-Tex®,
`
`and Tyvek®. PFAS have also been put to wide industrial use due to their unique ability to resist
`
`harsh chemicals and high temperatures.
`
`16.
`
`Two of the most prevalent PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
`
`perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), both of which have been widely used and applied in the
`
`manufacturing industry. Although the uses of PFOA and PFOS have been gradually phased out
`
`in recent years, both chemicals remain prevalent, and consumer products, food, and drinking
`
`water continue to be primary sources of exposure to PFAS.
`
`17.
`
`The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has found
`
`widespread PFAS contamination in the environment, and that the substances have likely been
`
`released into the environment in several different ways. For example, EPA found that PFAS can
`
`be released during the manufacture, normal use, disposal, and/or biodegradation of consumer
`
`products containing PFAS. PFAS may also be released into the air, soil, and water during the
`
`manufacture, use, and disposal of PFAS themselves.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 6 of 29 PageID: 6
`
`18.
`
`Once present in the environment, PFAS are extremely persistent and often have
`
`degradation periods of years, decades, or longer under natural conditions. PFAS are also highly
`
`resistant to chemically aided degradation processes. For these reasons, PFAS are often referred
`
`to as “forever chemicals.”
`
`19.
`
`Additionally, PFAS are soluble and mobile in water, which greatly amplifies the
`
`spread of PFAS beyond the initial sources of introduction into the environment. And, because
`
`PFAS, and particularly PFOA, are water-soluble, they can migrate readily from soil to
`
`groundwater. Therefore, once PFAS are released into the environment, they are extremely
`
`difficult to remove and even more difficult to contain.
`
`Federal and State Regulation of PFOA and PFOS
`
`20.
`
`In light of emerging scientific evidence regarding the potential long-term effects
`
`that PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, may have on the environment, EPA has designated the
`
`substances as “emerging contaminants.”
`
`21.
`
`In 2016, EPA issued drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS.
`
`Specifically, EPA guidance provided that a combined level of PFOA or PFOS in excess of 70
`
`parts per trillion (“ppt”) in drinking water may pose increased risks for people who consume
`
`such water.
`
`22.
`
`In February 2019, EPA announced an Action Plan to address PFAS contamination
`
`that includes initiating steps to establish federal MCLs for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
`
`EPA’s Action Plan is ongoing.
`
`23.
`
`Pending the establishment of federal MCLs for PFOS and PFOA, several states
`
`have taken steps to establish their own state-based MCLs.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 7 of 29 PageID: 7
`
`24.
`
`On June 1, 2020, NJDEP announced the adoption of MCLs and Ground Water
`
`Quality Standards (“GWQS”) for public water systems in New Jersey.
`
`25.
`
`As part of this initiative, NJDEP adopted amendments to the New Jersey Safe
`
`Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 58:12A-1 et seq., to establish MCLs of 14 ppt
`
`for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS for public water systems. N.J. Admin. Code § 7:10-5.2(a)(5)(ii)-
`
`(iii).
`
`26.
`
`In accordance with NJDEP’s newly adopted standards, all public water systems
`
`will be required to begin monitoring for PFOA and PFOS by the first quarter of 2021. Systems
`
`must conduct quarterly monitoring if PFOA or PFOS is detected at a level of 2 ppt or greater. Id.
`
`A violation occurs if the running annual average at any sampling point exceeds an MCL at any
`
`time. See 40 C.F.R. § 141.24(f)(15)(i)-(iii); see also N.J. Admin. Code § 7:10-5.1 (incorporating
`
`by reference 40 C.F.R. Part 141).
`
`27.
`
`If a system violates an MCL, it will be required to take necessary protective
`
`measures such as adding or enhancing treatment or taking source water wells and reservoirs out
`
`of service. N.J. Admin. Code § 7:10-5.7.
`
`28.
`
`The NJDEP also amended the GWQS, N.J. Admin. Code § 7:9C, to establish a
`
`specific groundwater quality standard of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS. N.J. Admin.
`
`Code § 7:9C app. tbl. 1. Under the amended GWQS, the newly adopted standards for PFOA and
`
`PFOS will serve as the remediation standards for cleanup of contaminated groundwater in
`
`accordance with N.J. Admin. Code § 7:26D-2.2(a).
`
`29.
`
`Finally, NJDEP added PFOA and PFOS to the List of Hazardous Substances at
`
`N.J. Admin. Code § 7:1E.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 8 of 29 PageID: 8
`
`Defendants’ Knowledge of the Inherent Dangers of PFAS
`
`30.
`
`Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s and continuing to present, Defendants have
`
`identified the potential risks that PFAS exposure posed to both humans and the environment and
`
`have documented such potential risks in numerous internal memoranda and scientific research
`
`studies.
`
`31.
`
`No later than the early 1980s, Defendants became aware that PFAS could enter
`
`the environment during the manufacture and use of PFAS and PFAS-containing products and
`
`that once PFAS were released into the environment, they could freely spread beyond the points
`
`of initial contamination due to their unique solubility characteristics. Defendants also became
`
`aware during this time period that PFAS were highly resistant to the natural chemical
`
`degradation process and could persist in the environment indefinitely.
`
`32. Moreover, Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the PFAS-
`
`containing commercial and consumer products placed into the stream of commerce would be
`
`used, and ultimately disposed of, in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and that such disposal into
`
`landfills and other waste treatment facilities and the ensuing biodegradation would further
`
`amplify the spread of PFAS into the environment far beyond the location of products’ original
`
`manufacture and distribution.
`
`Defendants’ Releases of PFAS in New Jersey
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have caused the release of significant
`
`amounts of PFAS into the soil, groundwater, surface waters and waterways, and air of the State
`
`of New Jersey through their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or
`
`disposal of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials and products since at least the late 1950s.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 9 of 29 PageID: 9
`
`34.
`
`These releases of PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA, into the soil, groundwater,
`
`surface waters and waterways, and air of New Jersey have been continuous and long running.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have manufactured, disposed of, and
`
`otherwise released PFAS, including but not limited to PFOA and PFOS, from several industrial
`
`locations across the State of New Jersey. Defendants have also imported PFAS and PFAS-
`
`containing waste from other states, and have used and disposed of such contaminants within the
`
`State of New Jersey.
`
`36.
`
`Beginning in the late 1950s, Defendants used PFOA to manufacture, among other
`
`things, fluoroelastomers, perfluoroelastomers, and specialty fluoroelastomers, which were then
`
`used in the production of a variety of consumer products.
`
`37.
`
`Beginning
`
`in
`
`approximately
`
`1975,
`
`Defendants
`
`manufactured
`
`polytetrafluoroethylene (“PTFE”) at industrial facilities in New Jersey. The manufacture of
`
`PTFE requires PFOA as a processing aid.
`
`38.
`
`This process resulted in both significant discharge and disposal of PFAS as a
`
`byproduct of the manufacturing process itself, as well as the creation of products that would later
`
`be found to contain significant levels of PFAS.
`
`39.
`
`Additionally, in or around 2002, Defendants began to produce their own PFOA,
`
`rather than relying on outside sources of the substances for their unique needs. Before this time,
`
`Defendants regularly imported PFOA into New Jersey from out-of-state distributors.
`
`40.
`
`Thereafter, Defendants used PFAS, including the PFOA produced in their own
`
`facilities, to produce many of the commercial and consumer products discussed above.
`
`Defendants also sold raw PFOA to other industrial users for their own use, including numerous
`
`industrial manufacturers in the State of New Jersey.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 10 of 29 PageID: 10
`
`41.
`
`Defendants also had a regular practice of accepting PFOA-containing waste from
`
`Defendants’ other off-site and out-of-state manufacturing facilities and discharging this waste
`
`through Defendants’ on-site wastewater treatment plants, a practice which was continued until at
`
`least 2012. Defendants likewise discharged their own PFOA-containing waste through this on-
`
`site method.
`
`42.
`
`In addition to PFAS themselves, Defendants have also manufactured and sold
`
`PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products to industrial customers, downstream
`
`distributors, and individual consumers in the State of New Jersey for more than six decades.
`
`43.
`
`The sale of PFAS and PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products to
`
`Defendants’ customers and the customers’ foreseeable use and ultimate disposal of Defendants’
`
`products has resulted in the direct and indirect release of PFAS to the soil, groundwater, surface
`
`waters and waterways, and air of the State of New Jersey.
`
`44.
`
`Industrial customers, for example, have directly and indirectly discharged PFAS
`
`to publicly owned wastewater treatment systems incapable of removing those compounds. As a
`
`result, PFAS have been further discharged to surface waters or released to soil and groundwater
`
`after passing through the treatment systems, thereby exponentially amplifying the environmental
`
`spread of PFAS.
`
`45.
`
`Similarly, many consumers who have purchased and used Defendants’ PFAS-
`
`containing products have unknowingly proliferated the environmental contamination caused by
`
`Defendants’ hazardous products by disposing of such products into waterways, publicly owned
`
`treatment works, and landfills, where the PFAS have been steadily and continuously released
`
`into the environment as a result of the natural and/or chemically-aided degradation process over
`
`the course of many years.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 11 of 29 PageID: 11
`
`46. Moreover, because of the solubility of PFAS, the mobility of PFAS, and the
`
`ability of PFAS to resist the natural degradation process and many now-existing water treatment
`
`solutions, the reach of Defendants’ PFAS contamination has extended far beyond the locations
`
`where the initial manufacturing, use, and disposal of the PFAS and PFAS-containing products
`
`took place.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants have known for decades that PFAS could harm the environment, but
`
`failed to take meaningful steps to prevent or mitigate the foreseeable contamination to New
`
`Jersey’s natural resources.
`
`48.
`
`Likewise, Defendants knew that they were releasing potentially toxic PFAS into
`
`the environment through their manufacture and use of PFOA and PFOS, and Defendants failed
`
`to take any action to remedy such harm or to disclose the risks to regulators or the New Jersey
`
`public.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants also knew, or reasonably should have known, that the purchasers of
`
`their PFAS and PFAS-containing products would release, discharge and/or dispose of such
`
`products into New Jersey’s waterways, publicly owned treatment works, and landfills, and that
`
`these foreseeable actions would further exacerbate the spread of PFAS contamination into the
`
`soil, groundwater, surface waters and waterways, and air of New Jersey.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants’ manufacture, use and disposal of PFAS, as well as their sale of PFAS
`
`and PFAS-containing products to industrial customers, downstream distributors, and individual
`
`consumers and users in New Jersey, and their foreseeable use and disposal of such substances
`
`and products, has directly and proximately caused significant contamination to SUEZ’s sources
`
`of public drinking water.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 12 of 29 PageID: 12
`
`51.
`
`By causing the release of PFAS into the environment for more than a half-
`
`century, during which time such contaminants were commingled with one another and combined
`
`into the natural resources they infiltrated, Defendants have inflicted an indivisible injury upon
`
`SUEZ that has caused unitary harm.
`
`52.
`
`Therefore, because Defendants’ own actions have caused harm that is not capable
`
`of division, Defendants are jointly and severally responsible for all damages SUEZ has incurred,
`
`as well as those that SUEZ imminently will incur, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
`
`use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS and PFAS-
`
`containing materials and products.
`
`53.
`
`On March 25, 2019, NJDEP released a Statewide PFAS Directive (the “NJDEP
`
`Directive”) indicating that Defendants, among others, were responsible for significant PFAS
`
`contamination of New Jersey’s natural resources, including the air and waters of the State.
`
`The Presence of PFAS in Public Water Systems Across New Jersey
`
`54.
`
`In 2006, NJDEP conducted a study of New Jersey drinking water systems to
`
`analyze and determine the presence of PFOA and PFOS in wells and surface waters that are
`
`sources of public drinking water. The study showed that PFOA and PFOS were detected in
`
`65% and 30% of the water systems sampled, respectively.
`
`55.
`
`In 2009 and 2010, NJDEP initiated a second PFOA and PFOS occurrence study,
`
`which analyzed 33 raw water samples collected from 31 public water systems in 20 of the 21
`
`counties in New Jersey. The 2009-10 study showed that PFOA was present in 57% of the
`
`samples, while PFOS was present in 30% of the samples.
`
`56.
`
`From 2013 to 2015, EPA required regular monitoring of the levels of PFOA and
`
`PFOS, among other compounds, in the “finished” (i.e. treated) drinking water from each of New
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 13 of 29 PageID: 13
`
`Jersey’s public water systems. The monitoring showed the presence of PFOA in concentrations
`
`of at least 20 ppt in 10.2% of public water systems, and PFOS in concentrations of at least 40
`
`ppt in 3.4% of public water systems. Both levels exceeded the average levels of PFOA and
`
`PFOS found in the finished water of all U.S. public water systems.
`
`57.
`
`In 2018, NJDEP’s Division of Science, Research and Environmental Health
`
`performed an environmental assessment of PFAS in 14 surface water samples from 11
`
`waterways across the state, which were selected based on their proximity to potential sources of
`
`PFAS. The results showed the presence of PFOA in 100% of the samples, and PFOS in 71% of
`
`the samples. Moreover, concentrations of PFOA were recorded at levels as high as 33.9 ppt,
`
`and concentrations of PFOA were recorded at levels as high as 102.0 ppt.
`
`Impact of Defendants’ Long-Running PFAS Releases on SUEZ’s Water Systems
`
`58.
`
`SUEZ owns and operates 38 public water systems that consist of surface water
`
`intakes, wells, and water treatment facilities. SUEZ’s water supply services more than 250,000
`
`unique service connections and supplies drinking water to more than 1.5 million New Jersey
`
`residents.
`
`59.
`
`SUEZ is committed to supplying its customers with safe drinking water that meets
`
`the federal and state guidelines and restrictions, including NJDEP’s stringent new MCLs for
`
`PFOA and PFOS. SUEZ must therefore implement significant enhancements to its existing
`
`treatment infrastructure to assure that the water it supplies to its New Jersey customers meets
`
`NJDEP’s MCLs.
`
`60.
`
`In anticipation of the adoption and implementation of NJDEP’s final MCLs,
`
`SUEZ began a quarterly monitoring initiative whereby SUEZ proactively monitored its existing
`
`water systems for the presence of PFOA and PFOS.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 14 of 29 PageID: 14
`
`61.
`
`Beginning in January 2018 and continuing to present, SUEZ has conducted
`
`sampling in accordance with its monitoring initiative at several water systems across New Jersey.
`
`At several separate sites, testing of the samples revealed one-time and/or running levels of PFOA
`
`and/or PFOS exceeding the newly implemented MCLs. Many other samples showed the
`
`presence of PFOA and/or PFOS at varying levels.
`
`62.
`
`At SUEZ’s Haworth Water Treatment Plant in Haworth, New Jersey, which is
`
`part of SUEZ’s Hackensack water system, testing revealed concentrations of PFOA as high as
`
`19.0 ppt and concentrations of PFOS as high as 10.0 ppt. Moreover, from January 2018 to
`
`January 2020, the running 12-month average concentration of PFOA in samples taken from the
`
`Haworth Water Treatment Plant increased from 9.1 ppt to 12.0 ppt.
`
`63.
`
`At SUEZ’s Upper Saddle River Well in Saddle River, New Jersey, which is part
`
`of SUEZ’s Hackensack water system, testing revealed concentrations of PFOA as high as 17.0
`
`ppt and concentrations of PFOS as high as 30.0 ppt. Moreover, from January 2018 to February
`
`2020, the running 12-month average concentration of PFOA in samples taken from the Upper
`
`Saddle River Well increased from 11.0 ppt to 15.0 ppt. During that same period, the average
`
`concentration of PFOS in samples taken from the Upper Saddle River Well increased from 7.6
`
`ppt to 8.3 ppt, and at one point in the interim climbed as high as 11.6 ppt.
`
`64.
`
`At SUEZ’s Wyandotte Well in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, which is part of
`
`SUEZ’s Hackensack water system, testing revealed concentrations of PFOA as high as 21.1 ppt
`
`and concentrations of PFOS as high as 9.4 ppt. Moreover, from May 2018 to January 2020, the
`
`running 12-month average concentration of PFOA in samples taken from the Wyandotte Well
`
`increased from 13.0 ppt to 17.0 ppt. During that same time period, the average concentration of
`
`PFOS in samples taken from the Wyandotte Well increased from 6.6 ppt to 7.7 ppt.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 15 of 29 PageID: 15
`
`65.
`
`At SUEZ’s Highland Wells in North and Northwest New Jersey, which are part of
`
`SUEZ’s Highlands water system—and which consist of 38 active wells—testing revealed
`
`concentrations of PFOA as high as 22.0 ppt and concentrations of PFOS as high as 38.0 ppt. At
`
`seven individual wells within SUEZ’s Highlands water system, the running 12-month average
`
`concentration of PFOS in water samples exceeded NJDEP’s MCLs of 13 ppt, and at two of
`
`SUEZ’s Highland Wells, the running 12-month average concentration of PFOA in water samples
`
`exceeded NJDEP’s MCLs of 14 ppt. In total, samples taken from at least 34 different wells
`
`within SUEZ’s Highlands water system showed the presence of PFOS and/or PFOA.
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ actions in releasing or causing the
`
`release of PFAS, including but not limited to PFOA and PFOS, into the soil, groundwaters,
`
`surface waters and waterways, and air of New Jersey and in designing, manufacturing,
`
`marketing, and distributing PFAS and PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products to
`
`industrial users, downstream distributors, and individual consumers in New Jersey has directly
`
`and proximately caused the contamination of SUEZ’s water sources.
`
`67.
`
`As a result, SUEZ has incurred, and will continue to incur, significant expense
`
`related to PFAS contamination and the remedial steps that must be taken to comply with
`
`NJDEP’s MCLs and to monitor for such compliance in the future, as well as numerous other
`
`costs necessitated by, associated with, or related to compliance with NJDEP’s MCLs.
`
`68.
`
`Specifically, SUEZ has identified three prudent, reliable, and cost-effective
`
`drinking water treatment options for PFAS removal: granular activated carbon (“GAC”), closed
`
`circuit reverse osmosis (“CCRO”), and ion exchange (“IX”). The efficacy of these options
`
`depends on source water quality, existing treatment technology, site layout, waste stream
`
`options, and other site-specific conditions.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 16 of 29 PageID: 16
`
`69.
`
`Regarding SUEZ’s Haworth Water Treatment Plant, initial analysis indicates that
`
`either GAC or IX will be the most effective treatment for the removal of PFAS, including PFOA
`
`and PFOS, to meet NJDEP’s MCLs.
`
`70.
`
`Regarding SUEZ’s Upper Saddle River Well and Wyandotte Well, initial analysis
`
`indicates that either GAC or IX will be the most effective treatment for the removal of PFAS,
`
`including PFOA and PFOS, to meet NJDEP’s MCLs.
`
`71.
`
`Regarding SUEZ’s Highlands Wells, initial analysis indicates that GAC will be
`
`the most effective treatment for the removal of PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, from the
`
`wells.
`
`72.
`
`SUEZ is currently analyzing the costs associated with the installation and
`
`operation of each of the drinking water treatment options under consideration at SUEZ’s Haworth
`
`Water Treatment Plant, Upper Saddle River Well and Wyandotte Well, and Highlands Wells.
`
`Initial estimates show that the implementation of such treatments will cost millions of dollars per
`
`location.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Public Nuisance)
`
`73.
`
`The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 72 above are incorporated by reference as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants’ failure to exercise due
`
`care in their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS,
`
`including without limitation PFOS and PFOA, as well as PFAS-containing commercial and
`
`consumer products, have resulted in the release of significant amounts of PFAS into the
`
`environment and natural resources of New Jersey.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 17 of 29 PageID: 17
`
`75.
`
`Defendants’ acts and omissions have substantially and unreasonably interfered
`
`with, and continue to interfere with, SUEZ’s right to the use and enjoyment of New Jersey’s
`
`natural resources and SUEZ’s right to the use of New Jersey’s groundwater and surface water as
`
`sources of public drinking water, rights which SUEZ holds in common with members of the
`
`public and which are specifically authorized by the State, thereby creating a public nuisance.
`
`76.
`
`The public nuisance created by Defendants’ acts and omissions is continuing, and
`
`Defendants have failed to take steps to abate this public nuisance.
`
`77. Moreover, SUEZ has suffered, continues to suffer, and will in the future suffer, a
`
`special injury different in kind from, and of a greater magnitude than, that suffered by the public
`
`as a whole. As the owner and operator of public water systems, SUEZ is required to provide
`
`drinking water that complies with NDJEP’s MCLs. In order to meet these MCLs and as a direct
`
`and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, SUEZ will be required to design, install
`
`and operate new and/or additional drinking water treatment systems.
`
`78.
`
`Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of the continuing public nuisance
`
`created by Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants’ failure to exercise due care in
`
`their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS and
`
`PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products, SUEZ has suffered, is currently suffering,
`
`and will continue to suffer a special injury, separate and apart from that shared by the public as a
`
`whole, and is therefore entitled to damages equal to the costs associated with the creation or
`
`acquisition, as well as installation and implementation, of drinking water treatment systems
`
`necessary to comply with the new MCLs, as well as the additional ongoing costs for the
`
`operation and maintenance of those systems and the regular monitoring of PFAS levels in all
`
`water sources necessitated by NJDEP’s adoption of these standards.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-19906-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 18 of 29 PageID: 18
`
`79.
`
`Defendants’ creation and maintenance of a public nuisance have directly and
`
`proximately caused indivisible harm to SUEZ, and Defendants are therefore jointly and severally
`
`liable for all such damages incurred by SUEZ in an amount to